See, here's the thing, people like to come up with very arbitrary and specific situations to try to prove how anarchy would fail, but often these situations would be just as bad or worse under government. For example, the situation with the drowning man. If there is a man drowning in the ocean, and there are two people on the beach. One of the people on the beach has a gun, but can't swim. The other has a boat, but no gun. The NAP says that the man with the gun should not force the man with the boat to save the drowning man. However, most laws in countries I know of also say that you can't put a gun to a person's head to force them to do something unless you are the government. So if the man with the boat does not want to help the man drowning the man with the gun will have to call the police and wait, and the man in the ocean will drown anyway.

The thing is it's pretty hard to imagine a situation like this, most people would care to help a drowning person, even for no monetary reward because of things like human empathy and compassion.

+1. Excellent points. Critics somehow that us anarchists trying to form some sort of utopia. But in the weakest utilitarian form, all it means to be an anarchist is that you believe that "Private courts/law/security are preferable to monopoly courts/law/security". Again, it is simply a preference in its weakest utilitarian form of the argument. (For right now I am ignoring moral arguments about self-ownership). You don't even have to have a strong belief that anarchy would work or that it would last forever or that an anarcho-capitalist world would come about within the next millennium. But since I strive for a better world, and since my logic and evidence lends me to believe that anarchy is preferable, therefore I call myself an anarchist and seek to bring it about (by promoting technologies such as bitcoin).

Quote

But say, for example under anarchy this situation exists and the man with the gun violates the NAP and forces the man with the boat to save the swimmer. The man with the boat takes the man with the gun to court. The court finds the man with the gun guilty of violating the NAP and essentially stealing the mans boat and time without paying for it. He will then have to pay restitution for the amount that the man's time and labor and use of the boat was worth. Perhaps, also some "emotional resitution" for putting a gun to the person's head but since the man wasn't physically hurt I doubt this would be that much.

+1. It gets worse under statism, since the state considers the armed boatjacking as a Statutory law - essentially a crime against the state - instead of only a common law offensive crime against the boat owner who momentarily had his boat seized.

Quote from: Wikipedia

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive branch or common law of the judiciary in a typical democracy/republic) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1]

Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutes of lower jurisdictions are subordinate to the law of higher.

What this means is that even if the boat owner decided that he did not wish to peruse criminal charges against the boatjacker (for whatever reason...maybe the "victim" realized that based on the circumstances at that moment of crises, that he himself would have done the same thing that his "attacker" just did), then the state can still charge the boatjacker with boatjacking (I'm sorry, I don't know the proper term...if hijacking is stealing airplaines and carjacking is stealing cars, then I'm calling stealing boats to be boatjacking, since maritime hijacking or piracy doesn't quite have that right connotation here). And you can bet that the state will press charges since the looters could always use some more money from fines and bail bonds.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."

(I'm sorry, I don't know the proper term...if hijacking is stealing airplaines and carjacking is stealing cars, then I'm calling stealing boats to be boatjacking, since maritime hijacking or piracy doesn't quite have that right connotation here).

Connotation be damned. this is the state we're talking about, remember? They'll charge you with Piracy because you stole a boat.

(I'm sorry, I don't know the proper term...if hijacking is stealing airplaines and carjacking is stealing cars, then I'm calling stealing boats to be boatjacking, since maritime hijacking or piracy doesn't quite have that right connotation here).

Connotation be damned. this is the state we're talking about, remember? They'll charge you with Piracy because you stole a boat.

yeah, great way to lump me in with Red Beard, Johnny Drop, violent Somali maritime extortors, and no to mention those throngs of illegal filesharers. Thanks a lot.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."

(I'm sorry, I don't know the proper term...if hijacking is stealing airplaines and carjacking is stealing cars, then I'm calling stealing boats to be boatjacking, since maritime hijacking or piracy doesn't quite have that right connotation here).

Connotation be damned. this is the state we're talking about, remember? They'll charge you with Piracy because you stole a boat.

yeah, great way to lump me in with Red Beard, Johnny Drop, violent Somali maritime extortors, and no to mention those throngs of illegal filesharers. Thanks a lot.

OK, We've defended our case, now, it's your turn. What happens if the man with the boat (or the swimming skills) tells the man with the gun, 'No'?

The "gun" in the example above was more of a figure of speech, a way to show force. But let's for the sake of argument say it's a real gun.First of all you'd have to be very brave to say no to a man with a gun. You have no idea if the guy you're refusing is someone like me who cares about saving lives and wouldn't kill you, or if it's someone who would go to any length to save his drowning brother, including killing you if he had to.That said, I'm sure people could get creative in ways to force you to help, without actually killing you.I'm not sure courts here would free you from wrongdoing if you shot someone though, even if you saved someone.

OK, We've defended our case, now, it's your turn. What happens if the man with the boat (or the swimming skills) tells the man with the gun, 'No'?

The "gun" in the example above was more of a figure of speech, a way to show force. But let's for the sake of argument say it's a real gun.First of all you'd have to be very brave to say no to a man with a gun. You have no idea if the guy you're refusing is someone like me who cares about saving lives and wouldn't kill you, or if it's someone who would go to any length to save his drowning brother, including killing you if he had to.That said, I'm sure people could get creative in ways to force you to help, without actually killing you.I'm not sure courts here would free you from wrongdoing if you shot someone though, even if you saved someone.

Very well, not a gun. Would you actually torture someone to make them save someone else? Empty threats are just that. Don't pull out the weapon if you're not willing to use it.

Very well, not a gun. Would you actually torture someone to make them save someone else? Empty threats are just that. Don't pull out the weapon if you're not willing to use it.

You've never played poker have you? Bluffing is an effective tool in your arsenal, even in real life. You just have to know when to use it.

What I can and can't do is decided by courts after the fact. I am allowed to go very far to save and protect, but there is a line, and if I cross it I will go to jail.Can I start executing people on the beach until someone saves the drowning man? Obviously not. Can I stab someone to get it done? Probably not. Hit you over the head a few times? Probably? Steal anything from you, including by force, to be able to save him myself? Likely.

You've never played poker have you? Bluffing is an effective tool in your arsenal, even in real life. You just have to know when to use it.

What I can and can't do is decided by courts after the fact. I am allowed to go very far to save and protect, but there is a line, and if I cross it I will go to jail.Can I start executing people on the beach until someone saves the drowning man? Obviously not. Can I stab someone to get it done? Probably not. Hit you over the head a few times? Probably? Steal anything from you, including by force, to be able to save him myself? Likely.

Well, yes, but this is about someone calling your bluff.

I have to agree that what is OK and what is not is determined after the fact. In fact, just running up and grabbing a boat - regardless of ownership - I'd wager would be fine. But even hitting someone to make them save someone else... I donno. You'd probably have to pay damages. But those damages would probably be far less than the fine/jail time for the assault.

See, here's the thing, people like to come up with very arbitrary and specific situations to try to prove how anarchy would fail, but often these situations would be just as bad or worse under government. For example, the situation with the drowning man. If there is a man drowning in the ocean, and there are two people on the beach. One of the people on the beach has a gun, but can't swim. The other has a boat, but no gun. The NAP says that the man with the gun should not force the man with the boat to save the drowning man. However, most laws in countries I know of also say that you can't put a gun to a person's head to force them to do something unless you are the government. So if the man with the boat does not want to help the man drowning the man with the gun will have to call the police and wait, and the man in the ocean will drown anyway.

The thing is it's pretty hard to imagine a situation like this, most people would care to help a drowning person, even for no monetary reward because of things like human empathy and compassion.

+1. Excellent points. Critics somehow that us anarchists trying to form some sort of utopia. But in the weakest utilitarian form, all it means to be an anarchist is that you believe that "Private courts/law/security are preferable to monopoly courts/law/security". Again, it is simply a preference in its weakest utilitarian form of the argument. (For right now I am ignoring moral arguments about self-ownership). You don't even have to have a strong belief that anarchy would work or that it would last forever or that an anarcho-capitalist world would come about within the next millennium. But since I strive for a better world, and since my logic and evidence lends me to believe that anarchy is preferable, therefore I call myself an anarchist and seek to bring it about (by promoting technologies such as bitcoin).

Quote

But say, for example under anarchy this situation exists and the man with the gun violates the NAP and forces the man with the boat to save the swimmer. The man with the boat takes the man with the gun to court. The court finds the man with the gun guilty of violating the NAP and essentially stealing the mans boat and time without paying for it. He will then have to pay restitution for the amount that the man's time and labor and use of the boat was worth. Perhaps, also some "emotional resitution" for putting a gun to the person's head but since the man wasn't physically hurt I doubt this would be that much.

+1. It gets worse under statism, since the state considers the armed boatjacking as a Statutory law - essentially a crime against the state - instead of only a common law offensive crime against the boat owner who momentarily had his boat seized.

Quote from: Wikipedia

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive branch or common law of the judiciary in a typical democracy/republic) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1]

Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutes of lower jurisdictions are subordinate to the law of higher.

What this means is that even if the boat owner decided that he did not wish to peruse criminal charges against the boatjacker (for whatever reason...maybe the "victim" realized that based on the circumstances at that moment of crises, that he himself would have done the same thing that his "attacker" just did), then the state can still charge the boatjacker with boatjacking (I'm sorry, I don't know the proper term...if hijacking is stealing airplaines and carjacking is stealing cars, then I'm calling stealing boats to be boatjacking, since maritime hijacking or piracy doesn't quite have that right connotation here). And you can bet that the state will press charges since the looters could always use some more money from fines and bail bonds.

So that's why you're an anarchist? Because you've lost touch with reality? You think you'd be convicted for crimes against the state for assisting someone in need? And that they'd do it to extort money from you? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. If you live in a fantasy.

So that's why you're an anarchist? Because you've lost touch with reality? You think you'd be convicted for crimes against the state for assisting someone in need? And that they'd do it to extort money from you? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. If you live in a fantasy.

Never run afoul of one of these laws, have you?

I have. Not fun. (not these specific laws, but laws where the state presses charges)

So that's why you're an anarchist? Because you've lost touch with reality? You think you'd be convicted for crimes against the state for assisting someone in need? And that they'd do it to extort money from you? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. If you live in a fantasy.

Never run afoul of one of these laws, have you?

I have. Not fun. (not these specific laws, but laws where the state presses charges)

Details or you're full of shit.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1

I have. Not fun. (not these specific laws, but laws where the state presses charges)

So, wrongly convicted of a crime you didn't commit? Like the A-team? Or did you break a few laws and had to pay the price for it?I can understand that it isn't fun to be prosecuted, but it rarely happens to innocents.

So, wrongly convicted of a crime you didn't commit? Like the A-team? Or did you break a few laws and had to pay the price for it?I can understand that it isn't fun to be prosecuted, but it rarely happens to innocents.

No, Not an A-team situation.

It's not a situation I'm particularly proud of, but one the Police being called did NOT improve.

There is no perfect system, because Humans aren't perfect. Or rather, we are perfect Humans and cannot be boxed by any system(or non system) of Government. In any Benevolent or Malevolent system(or anywhere in between) there will always be opposition(covert or overt). This makes it imperfect.

There is no perfect system, because Humans aren't perfect. Or rather, we are perfect Humans and cannot be boxed by any system(or non system) of Government. In any Benevolent or Malevolent system(or anywhere in between) there will always be opposition(covert or overt). This makes it imperfect.

Exactly. Which is why letting people choose or create their own system, provided they don't force anyone else to live by it, is the only sane solution.

There is no perfect system, because Humans aren't perfect. Or rather, we are perfect Humans and cannot be boxed by any system(or non system) of Government. In any Benevolent or Malevolent system(or anywhere in between) there will always be opposition(covert or overt). This makes it imperfect.

Exactly. Which is why letting people choose or create their own system, provided they don't force anyone else to live by it, is the only sane solution.

You obviously didn't understand what he just said.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1